Fluoroquinolones versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for the treatment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ko JH, Kang CI, Cornejo-Juárez P, Yeh KM, Wang CH, Cho SY, Gözel MG, Kim SH et al.

Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2019

663 participants · 114 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Fluoroquinolones are a popular alternative to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole on mortality of S. maltophilia infections.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and EMBASE.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Clinical studies reporting mortality outcomes of S. maltophilia infections.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with clinical infections caused by S. maltophilia.

INTERVENTIONS

Fluoroquinolone monotherapy in comparison with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole monotherapy.

METHODS

Systematic review with meta-analysis technique.

RESULTS

Seven retrospective cohort and seven case-control studies were included. Three cohort studies were designed to compare the two drugs, whereas others had other purposes. A total of 663 patients were identified, 332 of which were treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (50.1%) and 331 with fluoroquinolones (49.9%). Three cohort studies were designed to compare the effect of the two drugs, whereas the others had other purposes. Levofloxacin was most frequently used among fluoroquinolones (187/331, 56.5%), followed by ciprofloxacin (114/331, 34.4%). The overall mortality rate was 29.6%. Using pooled ORs for the mortality of each study, fluoroquinolone treatment (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99) was associated with survival benefit over trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole treatment, with low heterogeneity (I2 = 18%). Specific fluoroquinolones such as…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 663 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

• DOI
• PubMed
• Free full text
• Publisher page

Related studies

• Severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 associated with proton pump inhibitors: a nationwide cohort study with propensity score matching Gut, 2020
• Thiophenes—Naturally Occurring Plant Metabolites: Biological Activities and In Silico Evaluation of Their Potential as Cathepsin D Inhibitors Plants, 2022
• Inhalable Mannosylated Rifampicin–Curcumin Co-Loaded Nanomicelles with Enhanced In Vitro Antimicrobial Efficacy for an Optimized Pulmonary Tuberculosis Therapy Pharmaceutics, 2022
• Association between cord blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations and respiratory tract infections in the first 6 months of age in a Korean population: a birth cohort study (COCOA) Korean Journal of Pediatrics, 2013
• GC-MS Analysis and Biomedical Therapy of Oil from n-Hexane Fraction of Scutellaria edelbergii Rech. f.: In Vitro, In Vivo, and In Silico Approach Molecules, 2021
• Novel Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Parameters Quantify the Exposure–Effect Relationship of Levofloxacin against Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Escherichia coli Antibiotics, 2021

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free